Table 3.

Sensitivity analyses conducted on different groups of studies, with the overall estimate from the main analysis reported for comparison. Mean risk ratio: meta-analytic mean with 95% confidence interval.

Studies analyzed	k	Mean risk ratio	p-value	$\hat{τ}$	% above 1	% above 1.1	% above 1.2
Main analysis	100	1.22 [1.13, 1.33]	<0.0001	0.12	83 [72, 91]	71 [59, 80]	53 [38, 64]
Excluding borderline-eligible studies	91	1.21 [1.11, 1.33]	0.0003	0.12	82 [69, 91]	68 [55, 77]	52 [35, 63]
Excluding composite interventions	52	1.29 [1.18, 1.40]	<0.0001	0.11	98 [NA, NA]	87 [71, 94]	71 [38, 83]
Studies at lowest risk of bias	12	1.3 [0.98, 1.72]	0.06	0.21	92 [NA, NA]	75 [0, 92]	58 [8, 83]
Excluding studies measuring intended behavior	43	1.11 [0.98, 1.26]	0.08	0.14	70 [47, 88]	47 [26, 60]	30 [9, 49]
Randomized studies	75	1.24 [1.14, 1.34]	<0.0001	0.15	93 [79, 99]	80 [66, 88]	61 [36, 77]
Preregistered studies with open data	21	1.09 [0.99, 1.19]	0.06	0	100 [NA, NA]	0 [NA, NA]	0 [NA, NA]
Published studies	17	1.35 [1.09, 1.67]	0.02	0.16	100 [NA, NA]	88 [NA, NA]	71 [0, 94]
Unpublished studies	83	1.19 [1.08, 1.32]	0.001	0.13	80 [65, 89]	66 [52, 77]	51 [34, 64]
Excluding one extreme estimate	99	1.22 [1.13, 1.33]	<0.0001	0.1	83 [71, 91]	71 [59, 80]	53 [36, 64]
Including SSWS studies	108	1.31 [1.19, 1.44]	<0.0001	0	81 [71, 87]	69 [56, 76]	56 [44, 65]

p-value: for mean risk ratio versus null of 1. k: Number of studies in subset. $\hat{τ} = 0.12 to 0.07$ : estimated standard deviation of true population effects on log-risk ratio scale. Final three columns: estimated percentage of true population effects stronger than various thresholds on risk ratio scale. Bracketed values are 95% confidence intervals for the percentage of effects stronger than a threshold, which were sometimes not estimable (“NA”) when $\hat{τ} = 0$ exactly or when the estimated proportion was very high.